”So this is Boomer leadership? These two pillars of confliction are what the Me Generation proffers? It's hard, very hard, to vote on principle in this election of Frat Boy vs. Frat Boy. This is one of history's jokes, isn't it?”

Unfortunately it’s not a joke and if you think the boomer generation as leaders is so far over the edge be thankful if you don’t out live the lions on their heels. The problems with the me generation (me included I'm a baby boomer) have been bantered about ad nauseam. Even I noted the problems of win at any cost, back stabbing, lying, cheating and I’m entitled attitudes in my high school years. Clinton was the beginning of it. When it will end is anybody's guess now.

"The problems with the me generation (me included I'm a baby boomer) have been bantered about ad nauseam. Even I noted the problems of win at any cost, back stabbing, lying, cheating and I’m entitled attitudes in my high school years. Clinton was the beginning of it. When it will end is anybody's guess now."

Its not when it will end that matters.

Its how it will end that matters.

Hey, guess what! Reality has a way of intruding on the dreams of a wishful people. Even the baby boomers. Bush came into office wanting to represent a quiet America free from foreign entanglements. Kerry is at root incredibly narcassistic, believing that all the world's problems are caused, or can be remedied, by some American action (or inaction). Looks like others have different ideas and want to stick it to us no mater what. So as the population and it's representatives dicker over the right way to drain prescription drugs from Canada, or who caused the flu vaccine, or which one of the candidates is dumber and more evil, whoever gets elected is going to have to deal with REALITY. That means back-stabbing Europeans and mass murdering terrorists. Think a UN conference or dreams of Arab democracy will change that? Keep dreaming.

Reality Check.

The "Greatest Generation" produced 7 Presidents. Only 1 finished two full terms and he was the only good one. The rest? Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush. That's a stellar cast! The first is not aging well and will be vinegar by the time true historians look at him, mainly for taking the world to the brink of nuclear war. The next presided over the only defeat of the US in a war and was forced from office by rioting and looting in every major city, students rioting on major universities with four left dead. The next was a crook forced from office by the media that hated him. Then came the only one never elected to the job, never elected to any thing outside Grand Rapids, MI and presided over the Congressional betrayal of an ally who was willing to conhtinue to fight if we would support them. Arguably he did the right thing for the country and was paid for it by being returned to Grand Rapids. Then the one who allowed Islamofascism to take off by abandoning yet another putative ally and accepted the promulgation of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Finally the one who found himself in office only because of the success of the man who chose him for VP, got to preside over the end of the Cold War engineered by his predecessor while abandoning yet another ally. What a cast.

The next generation produced no Presidents. None. First generation in American history to so fail.

So far the boomers have produced two presidents. The first's faults were primarily personal. But he served two full terms in spite of the resulting impeachment attempt and led the nation to prosperity and welfare reform. The second looks to be on his way to two successful terms and success in defeating the most vicious foreign attack yet on America.

Anyone who really questions the future of the republic today has the great fortune to have missed the years 1964-1979 or the great misfortune to suffer from early onset Alzheimers.

Well, Cicero, you've definitely written a post that expresses my position. Depressing, isn't it?

My sense is the choice is between a radical and a conservative. Kerry is so conservative he wants the world to reboot from September 10.

Bush is a radical because he realized that the fifty years of post-war Atlanticism, useful as it was, no longer was critical to America's interests. He also realized that terror had been incubated by the West's reluctance to press for and initiate reform in the Middle East.

For Kerry national security begins at home and pretty much ends there. For Bush the key thing is to ensure that the questions of national security are resolved as far away from America as possible.

I have next to no time for Bush's domestic agenda - if indeed he has one. But Bush gets terror in a completely common sense way. I have no idea if Kerry has a clue. Nothing in his campaign suggests he does. So, were I voting I would not hesitate to vote for someone who gets it over someone who might or might not.

"...If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government, 'I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy,' Bush said. 'If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose.'"

I don't see anything wrong with this position, considering that the only alternative would be to take the freely elected fundamentalist Islamic government out by force. That would put the last nail in the coffin for any hopes of a democratic Middle East. Much better, IMO, to let the people face the consequences of their actions. Either they will find a way to make the fundamentalist government work, they'll vote them out (assuming that the fundamentalists leave the democratic vote in place - not inconceivable since they know they'll have the US watching), or they will appeal for help in ousting the government and we'll free them all over again. Or not. I just don't see overturning their election as an option.

>>The late JFK was an idealist who understood the stakes of the Cold War, and fought hard to export democracy abroad. He never blenched before communism, or suffered for lack of democratic ideals.

Wow. What a hilarious statement. I can't even begin to explain how disconnected from reality that statement is.

So I won't. :-)

I agree with Cicero that Kerry's supporters are mostly voting against Bush. That's just the case when an incumbent faces re-election. Did the millions of Clintonistas love him in 1992? No, they voted against Bush I. Ditto for the millions who love Reagan; in 1980 they were mostly voting against Carter.

But I'm not sure that Bush's supporters are just voting against Kerry; most of them seem to genuinely adore Bush.

Case in point: me. I'm voting for Kerry. Not because I love Kerry, but because Bush has screwed up badly on national security.

Count me as another Kerry voter who is doing it purely to get rid of Bush.

The image of Bush as a strong leader is a tissue-thin fabrication.  Nothing proves this more than the flagrant violation of the First Amendment by the DOJ and Secret Service in order to ensure that Bush never sees anyone who opposes his views.  There are no metal detectors on his motorcade routes to catch people with explosive vests, but anyone carrying an anti-war or anti-Bush placard is shoved to a "free speech" area out of sight or arrested.

The "strong president" can't be allowed to see disagreement because it might damage the administration.

Roosevelt's paralysis and Kennedy's health problems were one thing, but they didn't indicate weakness of character.  Bush is so fragile that our government has to sacrifice the First Amendment to keep him from falling apart.  And that, my friends, is why I have to cast my vote to get him the #$*! out of office; anyone who violates his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, or allows his subordinates to do so, is unfit to be POTUS.

I think there's a false symmetry here. It isn't a No-No election. It isn't equally anti-Bush and anti-Kerry. There's some of that, because the parties are so convinced of the effectiveness of negative campaigning. But in the main it's a Yes-No election: pro-Bush and anti-Bush. Unlike John F. Kerry, George W. Bush has a big base of people who just love him, who he connects with emotionally.

Unfortunately, that base has sharp edges. If you don't fall into that religious, pro-life and/or evangelical pro-Bush profile you don't feel the appeal at all. But it's there. This amateur slideshow practically frames George W. Bush as a direct representative of Jesus Christ. Now, take as given how much you don't like that, and just focus on how people that make stuff like this, and people that like it, feel. Intensely, right? This sure isn't a No-No choice for them.

On history, I think Richard Heddleson nailed it. I would take a different view of a lot of the details. Everyone will have a different story on the details. But in the main it's as Richard says.

I should add: it's not just "intense" feeling. It's completely, utterly non-ironic and mainly positive. Sure there are domestic bad guys and John F. Kerry fits into that group. And there is bad feeling about the /real/ bad guys, identified simply as "Islam." But the main message is: Bush as the beloved champion of the faithful, those "angels singing."

Sure, it's only one slide-show. It's an anecdote at best, not science. But I think it sums up terrifically well something that's out there in force. If you're part of those "values voters" who are going to Bush by up to twelve to one, depending on the area, this is not a No-No election.

re: GWB not conservative.

Well, he's certainly not a socialist. :-)

Most of these instances of non-conservative behavior can be explained away by the pragmatic necessity to compromise to achieve the larger goal. Where compromise means votes in congress and congressional majorities. Where the conservatives are far from being in complete control.

Given how close the polls are, it may be he hasn't been "liberal" enough... democracy being what it is (the worst form of government, save all others..).

And given how stark the difference is between the pubs and dems, I'd wager he feels he has to do whatever it takes to win, because he knows a loss means millions (of us) will die, and as we retreat to wihin our borders, we'll sacrifice much of our freedom and privacy to the police state required to postpone (if only by a little) the inevitable wmd attack.

Kerry is not a conservative; rather a reactionary. And Bush is arguably a conservative in the Burkean sense of the term. The notion that the conservative position is isolationism is avoidance of foreign entangelments would have come as a surprise to Burke. Of course, he never described himself as conservative.

Anyway. Are the people of this country really going to elect someone as crazy as Kerry to be their president? Consider this passage;

There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

"So we have President Bush, who really doesn't believe in exporting democracy but is in the position of doing so. For him, that's way outside of his political box."

I just don't buy that. All I've heard and seen from Bush is that he does believe in it, wholeheartedly. It wouldn't be our policy if he didn't. There are enough "realists" in the State dept. to overshadow any neocon nation-building aspirations unless Bush himself chose to listen to the neocons rather than State.

"If you don't fall into that religious, pro-life and/or evangelical pro-Bush profile you don't feel the appeal at all."

I am a fairly secular Jew, feminist, pro-choice, etc. I do feel the appeal. So do many other people like me who can tell that Bush is basically a decent commonsense guy even if we disagree with him on some important issues, and that Kerry is an empty suit.

All was smoke, mirrors and some sort of self delusion until Yehudit posted.
All the rest of you, you look like the petty, unthinking partisans you are.
Mike

In regards to Engineer-poet's post:

The very idea that the Bush administration is solely responsible for quashing dissenting opinions is wholly laughable. Might I point out the RNC and DNC - which party had the separated "speech zone" and which didn't? The one that did... well it rhymes with Memocrat.

I won't dispute your charge, but typical of this partisan crap that keeps popping up everyhere, your post is filled with half-truths. The president does it and SO DO THE DEMOCRATS. No one wants the dissentors near them and quite frankly the freedom of speech clause in the Bill of Rights does not guarantee the right to be heard merely the right to speak without fear of reprisal. If that means dissenters don't get front row seats to a Bush rally or a Kerry rally, then tough. It just means the dissenter won't be dragged out back and given a new hole for their head... like in some other countries which I will refrain from listing.

I think the saddest thing about your post is that you are so willing to point out the sins and mistakes of your opponent that you fail to see the sins and mistakes of your candidate. Quit worrying about the splinter in Bush's eye and pay attention to the plank in Kerry's [sic].

Oh and since I am on a rant... it wouldn't hurt for everyone to take a good look at the Bill of Rights and the Constitution before the election so everyone can be absolutely crystal clear how a person is elected in this country and what rights we are actually guaranteed. Just like Monopoly or CandyLand, it's a good idea to know the rules before you play and then declare that someone cheated.

Damn, I wish they still required Civics courses in American high schools. I swear that's where all this incivility and this failure to kin politics began.

I am constantly appalled at the level of discourse in this election.The expression of partisan feelings as if they were facts. The characterizations of modern presidential history above is simply crap. In every case, the reality is far more complicated than sugggested. The characterization of Bush and Kerry are just as silly. Two points made in this thread really irritate me.

The idea that Bush 'gets' the terrorist threat in a more common sense way is painful. Common sense is usually used to suggest a straightforward and obviously effective way of seeing things. Not only doesn't terrorism have anything to do with straightforward but Bush has gotten it completely wrong at every turn.

The jihadis that threaten us with terror are not amenable to any simple approach that would be understandable to common sense. Common sense might say, 'Preemptive War' but the reality of the jihadis is that they want us to attack places, to break down societies and to make ourselves more hateful to people that are starving and hopeless. Wisdom of the uncommon kind might say that it's a good idea to work with other countries to make sure that the jihadis can't move money or cross borders very easily and then follow by seeking ways to introduce hope into the lives of the potential terror recruits.

Of course, I can't help but observe that even action on the false dichotomy of 'get them over there so we don't have them over here' has been done in an incompetent and counterproductive way.

The other thing that bugs me is the assertion that John Kerry doesn't get it and is unloved by his partisans. I watched 'Up River' and I read the New York Times Magazine article on Kerry's views on the war on terror. Between the two of them, my affection for Kerry and his presidency were enhanced to fervent enthusiasm.

This is a guy that started talking about international crime years ago and understoood the threat to society that non-state actors could pose when he was running a senate committee on international-crime of some sort. This is a guy that had the stones to stand up as an anti-war activist when he had every reason to think it would cost him his career in public service and certainty that it would result in immediate calumny and repudiation.

John Kerry is a deeply moral person that has an active mind and a sense of history. His views on terrorism, since that's the issue du jour, are not 'common sense', they are instead, 'actual sense' and even more importantly, likely to be effective. Without understanding the underlying complexity of the chess game started by Osama, the game can't be won.

I've seen chess players and, George Bush, you're no chess player.

John Kerry is.

tqii

ps, The politics of the me me me was not started by Clinton, though it was exacerbated by the repub impeachers. It was started by Reagan when he said we can have a tax cut for the rich at the same time we vastly expand military expenditure at the same time we gratify ourselves as being the opposite of an 'evil empire'. The repubs have been carrying that ball ever since and it's been terribly destructive to the body politic.

pps, The opening salvo in this thread talked about cynicism among voters. After the Supreme Court decision in 2000, it seems warranted. Facing the paperless voting machines and Jeb Bush's shameless misuse of his govenorship, it seems necessary.

ppps, Jefferson supposedly thought we should have periodic revolutions. With this repub hegemony, I think the time has come.

Hi, TQ White II.

That's what I wanted to see: positive enthusiasm for your man!

So; you were already inclined to favour John F, Kerry. (Why?)

You watched 'Up River' and read the New York Times Magazine article on Kerry's views on the war on terrorism, and your enthusiasm became fervent. (May I ask if you are a regular New York Times reader?)

You believe John F. Kerry is a deeply moral person. (Why? What values does he uphold or what virtues does he manifest or however you measure morality?)

His intellectual superiority is key for you. The global war on terror is the fashionable issue of the day, but John F. Kerry's intellectual superiority could be equally well demonstrated in any number of other areas if people were as interested in them.

Is that about right?

If Kerry is so deep and complex, why does he keep saying in debates that Iraq was a distraction from going after Osama? As if AQ and international terrorism in general would disappear if we could just capture Osama. Bush understands it's a lot bigger than that. Bush goes after the stateless terrorist groups AND the states that harbor them. Kerry only sees one terrorist group, and identifies it with its erstwhile leader, not acknowledging that AQ has moved on from Osama. How sophisticated is that?

If "Upriver" impressed you so much, see Stolen Honor and the SwiftVet ads. You know, just for balance. If you think you can stand any criticism of your hero.

"If you don't fall into that religious, pro-life and/or evangelical pro-Bush profile you don't feel the appeal at all."

I’m an atheist of the small “l” libertarian persuasion, originally for Steve Forbes and went for then-Governor Bush in the primary largely to stop Senator McCain from becoming the Republican presidential nominee. The reason I chose and voted for Bush in 2000 was because while I had no delusions that he believed he would be a proponent of limited government (anyone who claims to feel betrayed on this point is either lying or didn’t pay attention), I did believe he would be more likely to move the Nanny State in more of an “ownership society” direction (Social Security reform, health care reform, education reform, and tax cuts) and would generally favor more growth-oriented economic policies. I was also thought him to be more likely to appoint constructionist judges to the bench.
Foreign-policy wise, I found him preferable in rejecting the thoroughly worthless ABM treaty, officially getting us out of Kyoto (which we already rejected in substance anyway), refusing to submit Americans to an International Criminal Court, and generally being pro-trade even though he also campaigned on enforcing our laws against “unfair trade practices” (and specifically mentioned steel dumping).

Today, comparing him to Kerry I see the following. Both agreed to the current baseline of spending but Kerry wants to add another couple of trillion on top of it over and above what Bush wants to add. Point to Bush. Both want to keep the portion of the tax cuts that goes to lower and middle income taxpayers (the portion least likely to grow the economy IMO) but Kerry is against the portion more conducive to capital formation. Point to Bush again. Both talk about reducing the deficit but neither has offered any real proposal to reduce spending, I consider it a wash particularly since there is no real evidence to support the “divided government” meme that some “libertarians” have used to justify voting for Kerry. Bush favors Social Security reform that would reduce the program’s unfunded liability (against a tax increase, endorsed allowing workers to invest a portion of their FICA taxes, does not oppose raising the retirement age, his commission also endorsed COLA reductions and switching from wage-indexing to price indexing, and Bush has already introduced means-testing to Medicare) while the only reform that Kerry has not disavowed has been a tax increase. Big point for Bush. Bush wants a market-oriented health care policy (speeding up the approval of generic drugs, expanding health care savings accounts, liability reform, improving the use of technology and information, letting people purchase indemnity policies, and expanding risk pools for small business) while Kerry wants to move us further along the path towards socialized medicine (a new $895 Billion health care entitlement, importing Canadian price controls on pharmaceuticals, and picking a trial lawyer as a running mate who specialized in putting OB/GYN’s out of business). Another point to Bush and so on.

The point is not just that objectively Kerry is worse than Bush on pretty much every issue I might criticize Bush on (he is), it’s also that there are a number of key issues where Bush is not only preferable by default, he’s actually pretty good in a big way even on some key domestic issues.

On foreign policy, I happen to think we’re doing pretty well on the War certainly better than anyone I know thought we’d be doing. It’s easy enough to criticize something after the fact with the “shoulda” and “coulda” or to pretend that you could do it better simply by wishing you could, but that’s not leadership nor is it a real plan much less a better one. When Kerry suggested that you could tell how well or poorly the Iraqi phase of the war was going simply by what you see on the evening news, it made me think of stories from Vietnam and how militarily we won victories, but people thought we lost based on what they saw on the evening news (e.g. the Tet offensive IIRC). That’s a pretty good indication IMO that Kerry is incapable of running the War much less that he could run the War better than Bush has if he really believes this or even if he’s just willing to undermine US resolve in the hopes it will help him become President.

As far as Bush’s appeal, I feel it too (as do most Republicans who overwhelmingly pro-Bush rather than just anti-Kerry) even though I try to make myself step back. I think he’s cagier than he lets on but generally a straight-shooter. I agree with the previous posters that when Bush says he believes that exporting liberty is the key to protecting our freedom, he believes it and so do I. Kerry on the other hand, I don’t know what he believes except for what he thinks is best for Kerry. Voting against the $87 Billion for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan was not a “principled” stance, it was he and Edwards hoping to outmaneuver Howard Dean in the Democratic presidential primary while playing into the “It’s all about Haliburton” fever-swamp crowd that seems to be the base of the Democrat Party. So long as that’s their base, I could not in good conscience vote for any candidate who caters to that mentality which disqualified each of the nine hopefuls with the exception of Senator Lieberman.

My P-value of voting for Bush is 1.0 and my breakdown is 80% pro-Bush and 20% anti-Kerry.

Dispiriting

Welcome to the real world, Cicero. The fantasy is over, and even George W. Bush realizes it.

Since there are so many thoughtful conservatives who post here on WOC - I wonder if anyone would comment on this article from Mark Schmitt .

Mark is of course a very smart liberal - so he has his biases (in this case his optimism that the current Republican nation is cracking apart.)

Would anyone here agree with his definition of conservatism, as presented? What would be the thoughtful rejoinder?

Cicero in a way is one of the main "examples", if you will, of the current disgust with acting Republican philosophy as embodied by those conservatives in charge.

What do the "responsible conversatives" think?

"but given the fact we're under the heel of Bushitler,"

Everytime I hear that phrase or any variation on it, I am reminded of the basic hypocracy of the Left.

Compared to Stalin, Hitler was a boyscout, but he seems to be the one used as a paradigm of ultimate evil and totalitarianism.

Of course we are speaking of the same end of the political spectrum which went to such extremes to cover up and suppress any information about Soviet genocide ie Holodomor in Ukraine,

How many know or remember that the same man who beat his shoe on the podium at the UN had the blood of 8 million Ukrainians on his hands? Stalin ordered, Khruschef carried out, the NYT covered it up. Oh and the NYT and Walter Duranty got a Pulitzer for the series of articles covering up the genocide. LOL they talk about Fox being biased?

Asked how he could justify his actions, if not as a human being, then as a journalist, Walter Duranty is reported to have said, the deaths of a few tens of millions of peasants are of no consequence, when weighed against the future victory of the Revolution.

JC, I think he makes the common mistake of conflating conservatism with the Republican party. Think of it like this. What if Reagan (way more conservative than Bush) were running today? Would the race even be close?

Lurker wrote:

What if Reagan (way more conservative than Bush) were running today?

Really now, on what basis is former President Ronald Reagan considered more conservative than President George W Bush? I don’t recall President Reagan campaigning on a platform to allow for the partial privatization of Social Security nor for that matter (rhetoric aside) did he do much in the way of restraining federal spending. Considering also that Reagan raised taxes and wasn’t nearly as aggressive as Bush 43 in going after terrorists (although there was the Cold War which affected the sort of response we could feasibly offer) and their supporters, arguably Bush 43 might be more conservative than Reagan.

TQ II

”pps, The opening salvo in this thread talked about cynicism among voters. After the Supreme Court decision in 2000, it seems warranted. Facing the paperless voting machines and Jeb Bush's shameless misuse of his govenorship, it seems necessary.”

The notion that the federal government should dictate to states the voting and manner there in may be a possible solution but not one I'm sure I'd advocate at the moment. As for other changes such as eliminating the electoral college and a potential do over we would be talking about major changes to our constitution which in my opinion is not going to happen.

The bigger issue here concerning Florida and the 2000 elections is the Florida state legislative process is at fault for the problems Floridians have in their voting system. It’s time for Floridians to demand that appropriate changes be instituted at the state government level and quit looking to the federal government as a panacea. It really irritates me that the only time people get involved is when they believe they have been done wrong. then instead of taking the appropriate action or actions that are afforded to them they are perfectly content to pass the buck onto someone else. Florida has a long history of voting irregularities and in my opinion they deserve what they let fester for so long.

You could argue Florida is part of the US and should be afforded the same rights as other states in the union. In my opinion they are and they should not be afforded any more or any less than any other state. Our constitution has laid out the guidelines for federal elections and placed the responsibilities on the states to institute those guidelines as they see fit. There is nothing in our constitution that says any state has to provide a vote period. If a state chooses not to participate then they deserve to be lead around like a prize bull in the ring.

JC

"Cicero in a way is one of the main "examples", if you will, of the current disgust with acting Republican philosophy as embodied by those conservatives in charge."

Cicero brings out the disgust with both parties. When I mentioned the baby boomers earlier I didn't divide them party because it is the whole not the select.

As for my comment about those on the baby boomers heels, if you think the problems with politics are bad now IMO you haven't seen nothing yet. What's going on now is mere child's play to what they will bring to the table.

"As for my comment about those on the baby boomers heels, if you think the problems with politics are bad now IMO you haven't seen nothing yet. What's going on now is mere child's play to what they will bring to the table."

Are you referring to Generations X and Y? Could you be a little more specific about what you think they'll bring to the table?

lindean

Both generations will be plagued with the host of political issues we currently face. The deal here is if you think the political waters are a cesspool now be prepared for the ruthlessness that will follow. Take a close long look at the young guns in our political system now. Are they striving for change and rejecting the bandwagon that is currently in tow? I think not. If anything they are on board full steam ahead. The more shocking, the more outrageous, the more outlandish, they can possibly be seems to be the order of the day. The younger generations education level will be a major factor. They are but the beginning of a deep seeded ill prepared society. Generation X Genertation Y Take the information in the links with a grain salt because the truth of these generations is yet to be written.

The problem with studying history, is that you have to watch those who don't repeating it.

Let me repeat some of the recent mantras.

The Nation has never been more polarized.
The War is a disaster, the government's
planning is incompetant, our President
is a reckless cowqboy*. Our image in the
World has never been lower.

ANY of Y'al claim that the above is
a misrepresentation of what you can
hear on the air or read in the News
these days?

How do the present times compare with

THIS
This war is an abject and utter failure. What everyone thought would be a
quick, decisive victory has turned into an embarrassing series of reversals.
The enemy, -- a ragtag, badly-fed collection of hotheads and fanatics – has
failed to be shocked and awed by the most magnificent military machine ever
fielded. Their dogged resistance has shown us the futility of the idea that a
nation of millions could ever be subjugated and administered, no matter what
obscene price we are willing to pay in blood and money.

The President of the United States is a buffoon, an idiot, a man barely able to
speak the English language. His vice president is a little-seen, widely
despised enigma and his chief military advisor a wild-eyed warmonger. Only his
Secretary of State offers any hope of redemption, for he at least is a
reasonable, well-educated man, a man most thought would have made a far, far
better choice for Chief Executive.

We must face the fact that we had no business forcing this unjust war on a
people who simply want to be left alone. It has damaged our international
relationships beyond any measure, and has proven to be illegal, immoral and
nothing less than a monumental mistake that will take generations to rectify.
We can never hope to subdue and remake an entire nation of millions. All we
will do is alienate them further. So we must bring this war to an immediate
end, and make a solemn promise to history that we will never launch another war
of aggression and preemption again, so help us God.

So spoke the American press. The time was the summer of 1864.

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000039.html
**************************************************
140 years ago to far back for you? Lets back up maybe 60 years.

We have won the War but are losing the Peace, American prestige has NEVER (start sounding repetitive to you?) been lower. The planning for the occupation is a disaster.

Go here and read NYT articles that sound like they were writen this week

http://thecr.blogspot.com/

*************************************************
I believe America had ALWAYS had two sides, One which confronted with adversity raises to the challenge becomes more than it was before and faces them, DESPITE what Europe thinks.

The other sticks it's head in the sand pretends that the world is something it has never been and worries about "image".

We have been at this juncture before. 140 years ago 60 years ago and we may very well be here again.

I hold with Patrick Henry.

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!"

If the deaths of approaching 10 million human beings at the hands of Islamofacism in the last generation cannot convince a person that we are in a global struggle from which only one winner can emerge,

I will not waste my time pleading with them, but will hold them in the same regard as Samuel Adams held their spiritual forefathers.

""If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

I know for whom I shall cast my vote and why.

USMC---

I wrote The War Within and Without primarily with GenX and GenY in mind. Lord knows what GenZ will come up with.

I hesitate to judge these younger generations harshly. We, as a generation, raised them. They took what we made and gave them. As always. And "our" performance---politically, in war and peace, morally, philosophically---is under their microscope.

I'm with you that I largely don't understand them, or at least find myself attempting to do so quite a lot; I also am loathe to predict their future contribution to society as nothing but worse than we have it now. In a sense, I believe society always earns its younger generation. They don't come from outer space. They learn what they are taught, and take what they are given and make the best of it. If that turns out to totally alientate us (older folks) then who's the fool?

Some comments on American Conservatism, R.I.P. (link).

"... the intellectual enterprise known as modern American conservatism has been utterly shattered and bankrupt."

I disagree. American conservatism is being transformed (isn't that Bush's pet word?) for the 21st century. With mixed success, but anyway it's going ahead. Changes were inevitable. That which can't change itself can't preserve itself.

"For the last several years, liberals have bemoaned the idea that conservatives seemed to have a coherent, relatively simple philosophy: small government, low taxes, free trade, strong defence but non-interventionist foreign policy."

This, which the whole article seems based on, may be what liberals bemoaned, and there's some important truth in it, but it seems to me that American conservatives have said a good many other things too. Fighting Communism and actually winning the Cold War (not just managing it endlessly), was a big deal. (And China is still there by the way.) There is no "non-interventionist foreign policy" to be found there. Free trade has been pushed by many but never by all. There are also issues vital to social conservatives that are not mentioned here, especially abortion, (mostly Christian) culture and opposing the overweening and politicised power of courts.

Above all, there stands the conservative revolutionary: Ronald Reagan. I agree with David Stockman that the Reagan Revolution has had serious down-sides, but it also achieved a lot and it effectively redefined conservatism in America.

Like Reagan, Bush is petitioning for a change in what conservatism means. He has not had as much success as Ronald Reagan in that regard, but you can do very well indeed and not do as well as Ronald Reagan. Remember, Bush has had a shorter career than Reagan, who had a long period of pushing for his ideas before he got to be president, while George W. Bush only got his main foreign policy idea from 11 September, 2001. And Bush is not finished yet. The legacy of how he has grown the Republican party (if only through his coat-tails, and he has added a lot more than that) will mature for a long time.

On defence and foreign policy, Ronald Reagan stood for a pile of defence money that would reach to the moon, and winning the Cold War. He got what he wanted too.

George W. Bush also stands for a deadlier and more high-tech military, but on the cheap through Donald Rumsfeld's transformation. That has a debatable report card because maybe the need was just for more money and lots more soldiers. My own opinion is: good job! (Of course the job is not finished yet.)

On grand foreign policy ideas, George W. Bush had two: the first was "the Cold War is won so let's back up and be more modest" and the second is "we've been attacked, so our organising principle has to be winning (not just managing) the Global War on Terror, and the way we're going to win it is to transform the Middle East in favour of democracy." (Or: the way to win is to spread freedom generally.) That's a great policy and an amazing turn-around, and it's working. He's gotten the liberal Republicans on board too - the New York Republican National Convention show-cased that: one liberal Republican after another effectively lined up to take the pledge on the new Cold War. For that alone, I think George W. Bush would deserve to be considered a conservative hero.

There are other issues I could discuss, but this is getting too long and I try to avoid raving on the pro-life and social issues I get passionate about (and on which nobody sane doubts George W. Bush's credentials anyway), so I'll just refer you to the really excellent post by Thorley Winston, #33242. Thanks, Thorley!

I wonder if a Kerry win really would lead to a more divided country. Make no mistake, I don't look to him as a savior. But I also don't see him resorting to the sort of divisive rhetoric the Bush Administration and the religious right have employed almost as a rule. Pragmatism does have its uses, and all but the most zealous fundamentalists see the uses of pragmatism.

I wonder if we're approaching burnout on all this hate invective coming from the right. It can't last. And people can't keep putting up with it. Does John Q. Conservative really give a hoot whether Walter and Bill can get married in Massachusetts?

Right now the "debate" has degenerated into lies and name-calling, and the mainstream media are complicit in this, refusing to stray from horserace coverage to cover any real issues. And you can be pretty sure they never will pull back the screen and reveal the truth behind the Wizard's impressive show. Where's Toto when you need him?

I wonder if we're approaching burnout on all this hate invective coming from the right. It can't last.

Are you joking or just delusional? Yeah, sure. It's coming from the right.

Well, that graphic alone is distasteful to my own palate. Nobody likes the ravings from the extremes.

I think the difference, however, between Left and Right is more in the politicians themselves. I would not say that the Democrats are saints. But when I look at the Republican leaders ... for a party that owns all three branches of government, the leaders, hacks and wonks have all been pretty sore, angry, petulant and reactionary.

You can point to a marginal publication like the Village Voice. And there are name-calling invectives coming from some other hacks and media monkeys, I know. But I look at just about every speech the President has made this year, and it's all anger and attacks about what others are doing or saying -- and anger and outrage when talking about what he and his administration are doing. It just gets tiresome.

Many conservatives point to Ronald Reagan as a big hero. Well, Ronald Reagan offered a positive vision, and had a calm, confident demeanor -- which are about the last things you could say about President Bush. When Reagan passed away this past summer, I wasn't the only one to look at all the clips of him on TV and almost feel nostalgic. Yes, he was conservative. Yes, he made a mess of a lot of things (such as the savings and loan catastrophe and tripling the national debt). But he wasn't about to get the United States involved in another Vietnam.

Take Ronald Reagan through time from 1980 and make him president during 9.11.2001 ... we would not be in Iraq today.

media girl, you seem weary of the war and of anger, nostalgic, and antagonised only by the right. (You experience wearying hatred and anger coming from the right, you did not spontaneously mention that there might be any problem also on the left.)

The future with Bush looks angry and bitter, with no good end in view. You are not buoyed up by any feelings of optimism about the war. The past looks brighter to you, and you prefer the calm, smiling images of Ronald Reagan, for all he did wrong.

Nothing about religious fundamentalist pleases you - you see them (and/including George W. Bush) as tireless haters who routinely employ destructive rhetoric. There is nothing you seem to really need from them except, in practical politics, frankly, less of them.

You see the proper answer as pragmatism, which all but the fundamentalists agree on. You look to a John F. Kerry presidency for pragmatism and social peace.

Do I understand you correctly?

I think the moderate, common-sensical, burned out, anti-fundie, war-weary vote may be a distinct and substantial weight in the coming election.

"John F. Kerry and John Edwards for peace!" above all social peace, where you live, is, in as far as it is credible, an extremely potent appeal years into a war that generates constant negative media coverage and bitter social divisions.

So, is this a No-No election for you? Or a Yes-No election: Yes to John F. Kerry and Peace, No to George W. Bush and the fundamentalist haters and all that anger?

You can point to a marginal publication like the Village Voice. And there are name-calling invectives coming from some other hacks and media monkeys, I know.
**************************************************
Who coined the phrase digital brownshirts?

In any case you know what statement got the most attention from me and I consider far more dangerous?

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Dick Gephardt

Shows a lot of respect for Constitutional Law that statement does.

Oh in any event none of the invective today is New at all in American Politics.

"Ma Ma where's my Pa?
Gone to the White House
Ha ha ha!"

So, is this a No-No election for you? Or a Yes-No election: Yes to John F. Kerry and Peace, No to George W. Bush and the fundamentalist haters and all that anger?

*************************************************
We need to change "Never Again" to "Neville Again"

Good example of Peace at any price, another name for it is appeasement, surrender and slavery.

"Both agreed to the current baseline of spending but Kerry wants to add another couple of trillion on top of it over and above what Bush wants to add. Point to Bush."

I don't think Bush has ever explained how he would finance the costs of Social Security privatization (estimated cost, over a trillion). In the debates, he simply dodged the question.

"Both want to keep the portion of the tax cuts that goes to lower and middle income taxpayers (the portion least likely to grow the economy IMO) but Kerry is against the portion more conducive to capital formation. Point to Bush again."

Has Bush ever proposed an explanation why his tax cuts/economic stimulus produced so many less jobs than his administration predicted? Barring that, it's difficult to say that he was right and a different proposed approach wrong.

"Both talk about reducing the deficit but neither has offered any real proposal to reduce spending, I consider it a wash particularly since there is no real evidence to support the “divided government” meme that some “libertarians” have used to justify voting for Kerry."

You're not suggesting that Clinton was a more fiscally responsible president than Reagan or the Bushes, are you? Bush supporters generally find it more convenient to credit the Republican Congress. Seeing as Congress was still controlled by Republicans under Bush Jr. and Clinton could not be credited for being fiscally responsible, the "divided government" meme has found many followers on the right side of the political spectrum.

David Blue: "So, is this a No-No election for you? Or a Yes-No election: Yes to John F. Kerry and Peace, No to George W. Bush and the fundamentalist haters and all that anger?"

Dan Kauffman: "Good example of Peace at any price, another name for it is appeasement, surrender and slavery."

I didn't say that.

I'm just thinking about the slogan "Hope is on the way."

Who is that for? In what mood or with what feeling would someone latch onto that slogan and decide to vote Kerry-Edwards? Who sees George W. Bush obviously intent on keeping on keeping on, and feels no hope regarding that hard course, only irritation against the belligerence of it all? Who wants someone to bring them soothing hope?

It seems to me media girl is the right sort of person for that slogan to have a strong appeal to. I think a lot of middle-to-slightly-left moderates will eat this up.

But I don't know. "Telepathy" is so often wrong. So I'm asking. And for the time being the words above are mine and nobody else's.

Cicero

You wont get a disagreement out of me concerning the understanding of Gen X / Gen Y. Yes we are the culprits for their short comings what ever they may be. The baby boomers quickly gave way to the entitlement frame of mind. In raising their children they felt entitled to make it some one else’s responsibility. Pre school, after school, day care anyone but me care. In short the Gen X / Gen Y has never effectively been told “NO”! My generation seems to have felt it was necessary to give them anything and everything they’ve ever wanted and then turn around and say it’s an entitlement. The generation of baby boomers gave away their responsibilities to the youth of our nation. Broken homes and single parents becoming the norm rather than the exception. The I deserve a life crowd with no kids giving way to the I deserve kids when I reach 45-60. Is it any wonder autonomy is a staple within the Gen X / Gen Y crowd? The attitude of take what you want by force if necessary seems to be the norm. Ask any high school kid who paid for the car their driving? Then ask if they should be made to pay for it themselves. I think you’ll be surprised at the answers.

In ‘94 one of my daughters high school projects was to write an essay on family structure and influences. Not sure which way to go with it she asked me what might be a good starting point. I suggested she take a survey of her classes and widen it if necessary with one question as a starting point. How often do you sit down at the dinner table as a family? That one question alone yielded some very telling information as to the destruction of the family core and the autonomous nature of our youth. Yes they were fed but all too often they ate on their own schedules and they ate alone. Yes they were clothed but all to often they were turned loose in the mall with a credit card. The results concerning single parent homes and divorce rates were appalling. BTW my daughter attended Chantilly High School one of the highest praised schools Fairfax county Va.

USMC,

I had the same experience at one of the Silicon Valley's most highly praised schools. It was shocking to have my children's friends come to dinner and hear about their microwaving skills. They universally told my kids they were envious, though we were near the bottom of the economic lader.

If you want something to make you feel more optimistic about the future, check the writings of Strauss and Howe whose basic thesis is that kids see the mistakes their parents make, and behave in such a fashion that they make different mistakes instead. This too shall pass.

USMC and Marcus Cicero,

As a Gen Xer, I'm proud to report that Mom had no qualms about saying "no." Any kid of mine will hear it as often as needed. It's a powerful and necessary little word.

From http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com

This may sound silly but It’s really something nice to be able to move freely, leave your country whenever you want and come back whenever you like and I can’t describe to you what I felt when I saw the word “EXIT” printed on one of the passport’s pages; I was sad for what we missed and at the same time optimistic and happy for what’s waiting for us in the future. Life seemed normal for me for the 1st time in my life. Soon after the war we could sense freedom immediately but this time we experienced it in a way that we haven’t before. It was an amazing feeling!
Despite all what’s Baghdad is going through, nothing can match the peace I felt when I walked down from the airplane in Baghdad's airport.

---------------------------------

Lots different than the democrap marxocrat
media story eh ?

Demoncraps Marxocraps Defeatocraps

Mass graves full of children with bullets in
the head and toys in thir hands.

Response from the morally obtuse democraps ?
"No Blood for Oil! Wrong War Wrong Place!"

That in itself is offensive as hell.
and we wont dwell on the "Bush is Hitler" stuff
we hear endlessly or commercials that accused
bush as supporting the dragging of blacks
behind pickup trucks

And what to make of the FAKE charges that Kerry
still will not admit vs what are now 300
Veterans of POW camps where they was tortured
Like Mr Day that has the congressional medal of
honor.

The vets railing against Kerry for what they
had to endure in those leftist beloved Commie
torture camps while Kerry Compared the leaders
of mass murder idology that have butchered 100+
million innocents under the leftist iron boot
like Mihn to George Washington.

All throut history, the left have held up
the perp of mass murder as heros.

And the leftist media continue in the fine
tradition of Walter durranty.

It seems to me that the right says things that
are factual and objectivly true and the left
calls that hate.

And the left deliveres ad hominim attacks
and thinks that is ok.

Notice how the vets and POWs that have been
wronged by Kerry have made substansive charges
that cannot be refuted in any meaningfull way.

They cant refute the charges, they are
dismissive instaed and just call it hate.

If its true is it hate ?

M Moore was able to show full of lies 911
without having ant theaters shut down
even as it was horribly offensive

Depicting the "potemkin village" view of iraq,
leaving out the child rape the childern
fed to pet tigers, and mass graves full of
children, was the same thing as shooting
a childrens playground in NAZI germany
just down the street from a NAZI death camp,
one can even imagine Moore pointing at the
smoke stacks of the jew burning ovens as
the factory where "peacefull germans, the
parents of these playing children, are at work.

The Moore film is objectivly a lie that put a
nice face on another Socialist hellhole, Baath
Socialist, instead of National Socialist.

More painted horrible evil as "good" and painted
those attempting to end it as evil.

How can this not be offensive.

You will not find any such problems in the
stolen honor documentary.

Instead they slander those who are truthfull
and send thugs out to shut the theater down

And this is offensive as well.

Also shows the double standard again.

I would ask. where in hell are the honest
democrats, is Zell Miller the only honest
man left in that party ?

Actually I know there are a few, they are
not the ones making all the commie agitprop
not the ones shooting guns into campaign offices
not the ones that say bush is hitler
not the ones that dismissed with a shrug mass
graves of kids and 14 year old girls used for
sex toys and fed to pet tigers.
and they are voting for Bush

http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2004/10/more-unlikely-bush-voters.html
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2004/10/yet-more-jewish-liberals-for-bush.html
http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/2004/10/more-jewish-liberals-for-bush-dept.html

And not all of them are Jews.

Raymond

Nation-building skills do not come naturally to an essentially conservative man---thus the flubs in Iraq. I give President Bush my vote because he has satisfied my one requirement: On some level, he understands that previous policy positions are untenable in the age of mega-terror.

When are you guys going to admit that nation-building is folly?